Stone mentions in the CNBC interview below that he didn’t take Chavez’s word, he talked to 7 other presidents in the region. Perhaps he should have spent less time talking to presidents and more time talking to the people standing in long lines desperately trying to acquire food.
A fantastic article from the Telegraph details the catastrophe Chavez has caused in the name of getting food to the poor.
Here are a few excerpts:
Church leaders said the failure of the state-owned PDVAL, a subsidiary of the national oil company, to distribute food imports that rotted at the shores was “a sin that Heaven is crying over.” Several thousands tons of rotting meat was among 80,000 tons left to go bad at the Puerto Cabello seaport.
The scandal emerged just weeks after Mr Chavez launched an “economic war on the bourgeoisie owners” of supermarkets, mills, rice plants and food distribution companies.
The result has been an economic catastrophe in the only Latin American economy in recession. Inflation leapt to 21 per cent in May as food prices rose 41 per cent over the level of a year ago. Soldiers have been deployed to raid private homes for food stores. Long lines regularly form on streets for basic commodities.
As complaints grow louder Mr Chavez has turned on the few remaining bastions of opposition in the country he has led since 1999. Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of Globovision TV network, was forced to flee the country last month after he was charged with offending Mr Chavez by spreading false information.
Be sure to read the rest of the article here.
{ 56 comments }
Oliver Stone once said that he believe Castro was a “good president” because of the people cheering for him in the streets… perhaps he should have looked for the guns pointing at the people that didnt cheer.
I’m afraid the Venezuelans have no one to blame but themselves. They voted in this power-hungry little tyrant. And what do they have to show for it? Food lines, rotting meat, and a reduced standard of living.
Central planning does not work. Venezuelans are finding this out the hard way. Americans will learn that same lesson soon enough.
I agree.
Democracy in action = Collective central planning… more or less.
And those who did not vote for him? You can’t treat all of Venezuela as a giant homogeneous mass.
And those who did not vote for him?
They get royally screwed over. This is a fine example of democracy in action and illustrates why a trying to temper a socialist government through the power of ballot elections is not reliable or safe.
You are right. It is very, very sad. I miss the USA.
Who does the tactics of Chavez remind you of?
I have no idea.
but I know one thing.. food may be rotting in the ports and soldiers may be raiding people’s houses to stock the government’s canteens…. but at least it is the moral thing to do.
I’m afraid Venezuela is moving at great speed towards full scale socialism.
The only silver lining will be that when the people will be reduced to eating rats due to the utter destruction of the economy that Chavez is engineering, it will show all those western leftists how great the result of his policies are.
No, they’ll just find some way to blame it on some trade policy we have or think that we have better planners here.
I wish this wasn’t true, but just read michael, there’s not much that convinces people on the left of anything except that we need more (and better) government.
I’ve never advocated more government, Matt, but we certainly do need better government.
As for Venezuela’s problems storing imported food, it appears to have nothing to do with price distortions this time. The head of PDVAL is being brought up on charges of incompetence, for storing perishable food in uncooled warehouses for up to two years. There are also some other issues, principally accepting imports that were shipped well past their expiration date.
I will agree that privatising this operation would have made it run much smoother.
No it won’t.There have been hundreds of examples of why socialism and communism does not work. Literally hundreds of millions of people have died as the direct action of their own governments.
You can show a socialist the truth, but you can’t make him think. Unfortunately. Some will, of course. Just gotta keep educating and resist the stateists’ attempts to minimize and hide the reality of what they propose.
It’s pretty obvious how things work in this world right now and this is a very good example.What do you think would happen with the news outlets of our country (assuming your from USA) if Walmart or other major American corporation was guilty of bribing the captains of all the boats containing all shipments of food to Venezuela in order to make it possible to setup a store with a 50% increase in food prices compared to it’s competitors (who would have no food left to sell)? What would happen with our news if the USA government set jets down to Venezuela to drop napalm on the boats in port in order to ruin the food stored in them in order to starve the Venezuelan people into changing their government?
Both these actions would be widely and wildly condemned by our own citizens and nations around the world. It would quite possibly trigger wars and reprisals and sanctions against any sort of American or business interest abroad. It would be a world changing event.
But if it’s Chavez ruining a significant portion of his countries own food supply by his attempts to seize more material wealth and political power then there is barely a peep out of anyone.
I have not brother, nor sister that worked in Venezuela, I worked during TEN years in Venezuela (1996-2006). Unlike your sister, I saw who in Chávez government, the poverty dropped, the standard of living of venezuelans has bettered.
On the TV stations broadcasting licenses denied (one only, the RCTV), I remember that in 2002, the RCTV (and anothers) had participated 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état, but the “dictatorship” Chavez respected the time licenses and denied TV station broadcasting license.
Some as the Globovision, that also had participated coup d’état attempt in 2002, but continue operating. If the Venezuela is a dictatorship for deny licenses of coup TV stations broadcasting, te United States also is. I remember that here in U.S., after the start of the invasion in Iraq, the Al-Jazeera was banned.
Some numbers in your comment is wrong, for example, is not true that the oil dropped, dropped during the oil lockout in 2002-2003, but after has increased. In 1999, the oil produccion at day was 3 millions of barrils at day, in 2008, 3,26 millions, dropping during the oil lockout in 2002-2003.
For someone who calls himself “american” your grasp of the english language suggests that it’s not your first language
Obviously not, Daniel. He calls himself “american venezuelan”. But he makes his meaning clear.
So how’s your Spanish?
De todo modo, sus comentarios son ridículos y parciales.
Hilaridad.
I remember that here in U.S., after the start of the invasion in Iraq, the Al-Jazeera was banned.
Um, it was banned at the New York Stock Exchange — not exactly the same thing as having the government pull your license. Venezuela is sinking into chaos. The poor are getting poorer though the middle class (at least those who haven’t left) are getting poorer faster. That is, after all, the socialist way!
Actually the most direct involvement of the USG was the targeting of al-Jazeera’s Baghdad office (April, 2003) and the pinpoint bombing of their offices in a hotel filled with journalists. One death, a number of serious injuries, and the offices taken out. Subsequently the same occurred in al-Jazeera’s Kabul office in Afghanistan.
I’m wondering what the reaction would have been here had Chavez taken out the offices of Globovision in a similar fashion.
No surprise. It is annoying to me that pretty much all rich Hollywood types are statists. Stone is pretty bad in this regard. His support of Chavez is depressing. Chavez has jacked that country as badly as any previous kleptocrat ever did. Honestly, I can’t tell if Chavez is a nihilistic moron or a sociopath.
Years ago, my sister used to work in Venezuela. She left, and anybody she knew from her time there has sold (or lost through expropriation) their property and left the country.
Since then, Chavez has ruined the currency to the point he had to create a new one (the Bolivar fuerte or “strong Bolivar” which removes 3 decimal points from the “old” Bolivar,) instituted price controls on hundreds of food products (which of course created food shortages,) denied anti-Chavez TV stations broadcasting licenses making state-run TV the only source of news, and expropriated golf, ranch, and farm property for worker run communes.
There’s been nationalizations of entire industries: telephones, steel, electrical power, cement, as wells as separate paper and tire manufacturing plants. Any entrepreneur that hasn’t gotten the hell out of the country has had their enterprise organized under co-management agreements with “worker’s council’s.” Any black market for products under price controls is met with active police and military response.
Any legal avenues left for legal trade are hampered by degraded infrastructure and stupid/bad regulations. Roads, water, and power are plagued with constant problems. Since he came to power, industrial output has fallen on a regular basis and oil production in particular has dropped.
Chavez is horrible. Anybody being an apologist for his stupid policies is mentally deficient. It’s a shame that Stone, a very rich man by any standard, lives in the US. Personally, I would love to see Stone’s reaction if he was on the other side of one of Chavez’s expropriations.
” It’s a shame that Stone, a very rich man by any standard, lives in the US. Personally, I would love to see Stone’s reaction if he was on the other side of one of Chavez’s expropriations.”
Let us all be careful not to fall into the socialist mindset. One core appeal of socialism is the notion that they are taking from people who don’t deserve something and giving it to the more deserving. Socialists tend to view the rich as inherently undeserving, thus stealing from them is not objectionable.
I hate that Stone even has to pay taxes, and would hate for any of his assets or business ventures to be expropriated. Just because he has some wrong and potentially dangerous ideas does not make him undeserving of his wealth.
Briggs Armstrong said: “I hate that Stone even has to pay taxes, and would hate for any of his assets or business ventures to be expropriated. Just because he has some wrong and potentially dangerous ideas does not make him undeserving of his wealth.”
Yes, Stone completely deserves his wealth, as he worked for it and got it by making people happy. He created products people paid good money for and he should be able to keep all that he’s earned. You’re completely right, and I stand corrected
Didn’t mean to sound harsh. I can sympathize with the desire to give those campaigning for socialism a taste of the medicine they so blithely prescribe for everyone else. But it is important that we stick to our principles and maintain the higher ground.
Thanks for your comments!
May I note that the USG has no taste for expropriation? Even when they bailed out the major investment banks and Detroit automakers, and might be expected as a major shareholder to take an active role in management, they did nothing to direct those companies’ operations.
So it is demonstrably true, that in America they won’t even take over a company when it’s handed to them in a basket with a ribbon on it. Agreed?
I have not brother, nor sister that worked in Venezuela, I worked during TEN years in Venezuela (1996-2006). Unlike your sister, I saw who in Chávez government, the poverty dropped, the standard of living of venezuelans has bettered.
On the TV stations broadcasting licenses denied (one only, the RCTV), I remember that in 2002, the RCTV had participated 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état, but the “dictatorship” Chavez respected the time licenses and denied TV station broadcasting license.
Somes as the Globovision, that also had participated coup d’état attempt in 2002, but continue operating. If the Venezuela is a dictatorship for deny licenses of coup TV stations broadcasting, te United States also is. I remember that here in U.S., after the start of the invasion in Iraq, the Al-Jazeera was banned.
Somes numbers in your comment is wrong, for example, is not true that the oil dropped, dropped during the oil lockout in 2002-2003, but after has increased. In 1999, the oil produccion at day was 3 millions of barrils at day, in 2008, 3,26 millions, dropping during the oil lockout in 2002-2003.
“Somes” is “some”.
Error of digitation.
Please. What I’m saying is true. I admit I’m not expert, but my sister is in the oil industry. She has nothing good to say about Chavez and neither do any of her Venezuelan friends, who by the way, have left the country. When oil was nationalized, everything went to hell.
Globovision did not participate in any coup. What they did do, stupidly, was to continue reporting the coup as successful when it wasn’t. It should be noted that the man that ran that network, Guillermo Zuloaga, has recently gone into exile as he had to leave the country or go to prison for having a dissenting view.
Yes, RCTV was the one that lost it’s license, but the others that were critical of Chavez, Venevisión and Televen, were more conciliatory towards his regime. There were originally strong opponents, but they knew what was up. Keep being an opponent, and at some point, Chavez and his people will come for you. Just ask Guillermo Zuloaga or the people at RCTV.
In reference to Al-Jazeera being banned in Iraq— It shouldn’t have been. I didn’t watch Al-Jazerra at the time, but if I had to guess, they were probably asking the same questions I was asking. “Why is the US government in Iraq for what seem to be false reasons?” Trying to justify garbage like the Chavez/RCTV debacle with the US invading force banning Al-Jazeera is foolish as both are wrong and stupid.
Regarding oil output,the high points in Venezuela oil production were 1997 and 2000. In 2009, it dropped back to the 1999 level. And some people are disputing those 2008 and 2009 figures, saying they’re even lower.
See this article here– http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100803-719217.html
“. . .oil output declined from more than 3.2 million barrels of oil a day in 2008 to just over 3 million barrels a day last year. Some independent analysts say those figures are inflated and that Venezuela is actually producing roughly 2.4 million barrels a day.”
And these figures here show the 1997 and 2000 highs and also the recent decline.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/venezuela/oil.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/venezuela/images/venez-oil_production_consumption.gif
I said not that You lied. I said that some numbers is wrong.
As said, I have not a brother or sister that works in Venezuela, I worked in Aragua, Venezuela, I know that the standard of living of venezuelans has bettered in Chavez government. Has a district neighbor at my that, previously Chávez, had not nothing: without drinking water. To drink water, the persons drank water of well. Chavez built acueduct and the life of this persones changed. I know that this is a heresy to you liberals, because you believe that has that privatize.
Yes, the Globovision and RCTV participed in 2002 coup d’état. But the “garbage” Chavez respected the time license to deny five years after, enquanto the Globovision continues insulting the Chavez government.
Zuloaga was arrested for offense to Law. He had irregularly 24 cars stored in their mansion, and their justification was contradictory.
The oil production dropped in 2009, but consequence world crisis. The problem is not nationalization, in country of The Telegraph, UNITED KINGDOM, the oil and gas production dropped. Blame of nationalization? But in UK, this sector is operated by private companies, as British Petrolium. Also is true that the situation of workers in oil industry is precarious, when is private, the situation is worse, beause the workers has not free organization right. In UK, 2009, Lindsey, 650 workers of Total did strike against the layoffs, was dismissed.
The Al-Jazeera was not banned only in Iraq, HERE in United States also was banned in Bush government.
I said not that You lied. I said that some numbers is wrong.
As said, I have not a brother or sister that works in Venezuela, I worked in Aragua, Venezuela, I know that the standard of living of venezuelans has bettered in Chavez government. Has a district neighbor at my that, previously Chávez, had not nothing: without drinking water. To drink water, the people drank water of well. Chavez built acueduct and the life of this people started to change. In 2006, they already had a hospital, medicals, school, all built by Missions of Chávez. I know that this is a heresy to you liberals, because you believe that has that privatize.
Yes, the Globovision and RCTV participed in 2002 coup d’état. But the “garbage” Chavez respected the time license to deny five years after, enquanto the Globovision continues insulting the Chavez government.
Zuloaga was arrested for offense to Law. He had irregularly 24 cars stored in their mansion, and their justification was contradictory.
The oil production dropped in 2009, but consequence world crisis. The problem is not nationalization, in country of The Telegraph, UNITED KINGDOM, the oil and gas production dropped. Blame of nationalization? But in UK, this sector is operated by private companies, as British Petrolium. Also is true that the situation of workers in oil industry is precarious, when is private, the situation is worse, beause the workers has not free organization right. In UK, 2009, Lindsey, 650 workers of Total did strike against the layoffs, was dismissed.
The Al-Jazeera was not banned only in Iraq, HERE in United States also was banned in Bush government.
“Yes, the Globovision and RCTV participed in 2002 coup d’état. But the “garbage” Chavez respected the time license to deny five years after, enquanto the Globovision continues insulting the Chavez government.”
The man harrassed these people and then pulled the plug. Stop acting as if somehow they’re completely in the wrong.
“Zuloaga was arrested for offense to Law. He had irregularly 24 cars stored in their mansion, and their justification was contradictory.”
Of course, because a man owning that many cars is obviously evil. Give me a break. Owning cars is a crime that deserves prison? Anybody that has that many cars should be celebrated to have the wealth to acquire them.
“The oil production dropped in 2009, but consequence world crisis. The problem is not nationalization, in country of The Telegraph, UNITED KINGDOM, the oil and gas production dropped. Blame of nationalization? But in UK, this sector is operated by private companies, as British Petrolium.”
If you look at Cortez’s stats linked in his post, you see that the output was dropping before the world economy tanked.
“Also is true that the situation of workers in oil industry is precarious, when is private, the situation is worse, beause the workers has not free organization right. In UK, 2009, Lindsey, 650 workers of Total did strike against the layoffs, was dismissed.”
If the 650 people weren’t laid off, I guarantee you that sector of the company in question wouldn’t be profitable and would have lead to greater problems. Keeping people on, and even hiring more, as Chavez is doing, is going to cause more problems. There’s a reason firms hire and fire people. Sometimes it has to do with individual performance, sometimes it has to do with keeping the company profitable.
And besides, why can’t people engage in voluntary arrangements? The company decides to end the working relationship with the employee or vice versa— On a princple level, this is no different than a wife divorcing a husband.
“The Al-Jazeera was not banned only in Iraq, HERE in United States also was banned in Bush government.”
As Cortez said in his post, it shouldn’t be banned. Trying to point to that and saying “see you’re government is doing it, too” makes the very bad assumption that somehow everybody agrees with it. I am pretty sure every regular poster on this site would disagree with not only the ban, but the government itself.
Chris: In all fairness, the owners of Venezuela’s major media outlets were major instigators of the opposition movement, and supported the coup all the way. If a plot to overthrow the US government had been just barely foiled, and the heads of CBS and NBC been supporters of the coup planners, do you think they would get their licenses renewed?
Uh…Michael,
It’s one thing to speak badly of the president and condemn his policies and another to have the anchorman or owners of a media company take up arms in a coup. I think the media in Venezuela was perhaps not too dissimilar from that of Fox News’ constant berating of Obama’s policies. Yet I don’t see Obama calling on the FCC to revoke Fox news media corps’ license to operate here in the U.S. In either case you can’t justify what Chavez has done and continues to do.
Virtually all of Venezuela’s privately owned media expressed approval of the coup, before, during and after the attempt was quelled. During the buildup they were urging Venezuelans to take to the streets and support the coup; during the coup, news reports were greatly distorted in favor of the rebel forces; and when it was unraveling there was an almost total news blackout. Coup leaders appear to have coordinated their activities in advance and throughout the coup with the media, the National Endowment for Democracy and the US Embassy, as well as US media outlets.
I don’t think any American president would be in a forgiving mood if our media were cheering for the downfall of the elected government. Nor if there were evidence of their coordination with coup leaders. That’s insurrection, something that used to be punishable by death.
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2002/04/18/Worldandnation/Media_accused_in_fail.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/710
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt#Media_role
That said, be it noted that Venezuelan politics are of the fiery sort. Chavez himself led an unsuccessful coup, and only a handful of years later was able to come on the ballot and get elected president. Pedro Carmona, leader of the failed 2002 attempt, fled to Colombia, where he still remains in a de facto condition of exile. Coup attempts are not taken all that seriously there, compared to most other countries.
Note that there has been no serious political repression since the attempt, although a great many business leaders were implicated, both inside and outside the media. Several people were given short prison sentences, none were executed and a handful of stations lost their broadcast licenses.
They can still be seen in Venezuela, on cable.
Just reading through the archives of the site and wanted to respond to stuff that didn’t get responded to. . .
Yes, some of the channels can be seen on Cable, but cable has just under half the penetration of regular TV, so the audience is much smaller and because of this most people never get to hear any voices of opposition. In addition, only one radio network is allowed and it is state owned. There are many, many laws that control any media outlet, in addition of threats and harassment to try to keep them in line. (See the Guillermo Zuloaga and his cars.)
Chavez and censorship
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/01/chavez-venezuela-rctv/
The media and the coup
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2009/05/facts-and-fiction-on-chavez-reasons-to.html
Lies contained in the movie “The Revolution will not be Televised”
http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200311161345
Example of a press release done by the Chavez/PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) government owned news agency AVN (Agencia Venezolana de Noticias)
http://www.caracaschronicles.com/node/2710
On a side note, if you’re a mayor, and you piss off Chavez, you’ll have all of your office’s money and authority taken away. Seems kind of petty and childish to me.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=333870
My father regularly goes there on business, mainly becaue they have no clue how to keep their own power plants running and spend a small fortune importing engineers to fix the problems. He tells me of the weekly radio speeches Chavez gives. His favorite one was about how the quality of life is better in Venezuela because a pound of beef is cheaper in Venezuela than the USA because Chavez had the price set lower. While he was listening to this, my dad was eating a hamburger that cost $100 US. Sure, Chavez set the price lower than the US price per pound, but no one is willing to sell it at that. Nearly all the beef in the country comes from the black market. The hotel my dad stays at down there is pretty much exempted from having to follow official prices becuase no one would come in from out of the country to fix their power plants and oil refineries without having the proper level of luxury. No one in that entire country grasps the basic concept of capital maintenance, so they have to hire expensive consultants from overseas to fix major problems that could have been averted through basic maintenance. So, while my dad eats his $100 burger and $15 cup of coffee – Chavez banned coffee imports becuase it was “unfair” that Columbia was selling it cheaper, while nationalizing all the coffee plantations becuase it was “unfair” they were pricing coffee higher than his arbitrary level – which is paid for by Venezuelans (Venezuela reimburses his company 100% for the trip), the rest of the country can’t get any of it.
I’m not sure how you can call this an improved quality of life.
But Chavez built some things in this one particular town:
Clearly Chavez has been good for everyone! After all, if he did this, how could anything else he’s done negate this benefit?
I know it’s a sarcastic comment meant to support mine, but:
I drink well water. A cheap reverse osmosis device under my sink makes it far cleaner and safer than the Missions of Chavez aqueduct. Seriously, an aqueduct? They couldn’t do better than Roman-era plumbing? I doubt the construction of this public waterworks was cheaper than $250/household and the two year maintenance cost is not less than $50/household. That’s how much it cost to buy the RO unit and the membranes last two years and are replaced in 10 minutes for a total cost of $50.
The hospital is unlikely to be in good condition in a few years (referencing back to how badly they maintain critical economic items like oil refineries and power plants), and I’m not sure what medicals means. The school is unlikely to do any good as it’s going to be staffed by some government employee who is only there to collect a paycheck, much like the maintenance department employees of the nationalized power plants.
The town residents will be much worse off now that they have minimally maintained and poorly run buildings arbitrarily called a “hospital” and “school” in the town and an overly expensive and elaborate public waterworks system that cheaper alternatives provide superior results in. Mainly because these illusions of progress will be relied upon in the future and will not function when they actually attempt to use it.
¡Comer hamburguesas es antirevolucionario!
Yup, 30% inflation is pretty bad. But it was worse before Chavez showed up, back in 1998. Take a look at the chart:
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/inflation_rate_(consumer_prices).html
It’s been their most intractable problem… under every government, right, left and in between.
It was under control when Chavez came into power, and after that it became out of control. To the point that a new currency had to be introduced.
And inflation is only an intractable problem for countries that have governments that continually print money. At some point, the currency gets destroyed. Read some Mises or Rothbard on this site for the details.
By “under control” you mean that inflation had been seesawing back and forth between 98% and 40%, and had dropped to 35% the year Chavez came to power. Since then there have been 12 years when inflation has not exceeded 32%. It has leveled off. One could make the case that the inflation picture is not improving, but that it is stable.
Here’s what the CIA’s World Factbook has to say about it:
“Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, about 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP. A nationwide strike between December 2002 and February 2003 had far-reaching economic consequences – real GDP declined by around 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 – but economic output since then has recovered strongly. Fueled by high oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP by about 10% in 2006, 8% in 2007, and nearly 5% in 2008, before the world recession caused a contraction in 2009. This spending, combined with recent minimum wage hikes and improved access to domestic credit, has created a consumption boom but has come at the cost of higher inflation – roughly 20% in 2007 and more than 30% in 2008. Imports also jumped significantly before the recession of 2009. Declining oil prices in the latter part of 2008 are undermining the government’s ability to continue the high rate of spending. President Hugo CHAVEZ in 2008-09 continued efforts to increase the government’s control of the economy by nationalizing firms in the agribusiness, banking, tourism, oil, cement, and steel sectors. In 2007, he nationalized firms in the petroleum, communications, and electricity sectors. In January, 2010, CHAVEZ announced a dual exchange rate system for the fixed rate bolivar. The system offers a 2.6 bolivar per dollar rate for imports of essentials, including food, medicine, and industrial machinery, and a 4.3 bolivar per dollar rate for imports of other products, including cars and telephones.”
Chavez spends money on social supports. Most of the country being poor, most Venezuelans agree with “venezuelan american” above in saying that things have gotten better. Before Chavez this money wasn’t being spent on alleviating poverty but was instead going into people’s pockets. People who have been highly resentful of the new government. And demonstrably, they were stealing more than Chavez has been spending, as exemplified in the improvement in the inflation rate.
Dear Michael.
I who lived in Venezuela for Ten years, I know that the index prices previously Chavez was very greatest. In 1996, for example, the Venezuela had hyperinflation (without compensation in wage), the index prices was to three digits. Was the hell.
The people that are arguing that inflation is not as bad need to keep in mind, he straight out killed the old currency. The new one, “Bolivar fuerte” is the “old” Bolivar with 3 zero’s cut off. The question to be asked is, are the figures being cited using the “old” Bolivar or “new” Bolivar? If the government figures are using the “new” Bolivar, then inflation would appear to be much less than if they were using the “old” one. Unless I’ve got my math wrong, this would mean that the currency was effectively devalued by a thousand in one move.
Note – those are the OFFICIAL rates. In a country where the pricing of key goods and services are dictated by the State officials, inflation rates based on them are meaningless. It’s more important to look at actual sale prices on the black market in this case, which presents are more true-to-life inflation.
A good example – the currency exchange. The “official” exchange rate is 4.29 of the comically called Strong Bolivars for $1 US. This exchange rate, like the Yuan, is basically set-in-stone by Venezeula’s government. But when my Dad takes trips there for business, he can go up to a guy on the street with a folding table and a lock box and convert $1 into 12 Bolivars. It’s still not the true exchange ratio as the difference is the money changer’s fee, but it shows that the true value of the “Strong” Bolivar is about 1/4 of what it’s being presented to be on official lists.
The reality is that 30%, which heavily relies on pricing set by government decree, is understated. It’s more important to look at the $200/pound black market ground beef price than the $4.99/pound official price set by Chavez. You can’t buy it at $4.99/pound, so the government raising the price from $4.99 to $6.49 next year and claiming 30% inflation is meaningless.
Who do the apologists of Chavez remind you of?
michael. without the ridiculous khaki outfit. Long-winded.
Today the americans are commenting on “catastrophe Chavez” in tents. In successful britain advocated by The Telegraph, the standard of living return to Victorian levels.
…what?
In Soviet Venezuela, english learn you!
Hilarious. You, sir, have made my day.
Oops, gotta go. One of the stakes in my tent pulled loose.
There is no one left to stop Chavez.
Is sensation my or You are suggesting who the government do nothing, leave the people abandoned, as did Grover Cleveland with the farmers ruined by drought (what was praised by Mises in “Economic Policy: thoughts for Today and Tomorrow”)?
If you know not, Zuloaga had a concessionary of cars, and he was speculating with the cars, having 24 cars stored in their mansion. This is the accusation against he: crime against the popular economics, because as speculates with the car, can speculate with the food.
What is o problem of acueducts? Here in U.S., some local use acueducts, in UK also.
In Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2006, the water supply was renationalize (for popular pressure), because the concessionaire knew not purify the water. Therefore, “a cheap reverse osmosis device under my sink makes it far cleaner and safer than the” privatization.
¡Que vuelva Evita!
The problem is not a lack of food, but excessive people. Like 1930′s China and the USSR, Chavez just needs to eliminate a quarter of the population or so. Then, sucess!!
¡Hasta la victoria siempre!
I was wondering why is Venezuela such a poor country? Where is the money from the oil going? what are the main reasons of this?
It seems that natural resources are a curse and not a blessing…
Thank you!
Comments on this entry are closed.